in the branches of the tree which had been sown by Jesus Christ.

33. ὁμοία ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν ζύμῃ] Difficulties have been thrown in the way of the right interpretation of this Parable by Churchmen, whose motive is only too apparent; and that is, to give as little honour as possible to JEHOVAH, and to attach undue honour and immense importance to the offices and ministrations of man. According to Churchmen, the leaven is here figurative of good, and is to be interpreted of the sanctifying influence of the Church. But to this interpretation there are grave objections for in the first place, (vun is elsewhere in N. T. used figuratively, and always in a bad sense; and it would be contrary to all analogy and consistency to interpret it in a good sense here, but here only. Secondly, the KKλŋσía is nowhere called an instrument of sanctification. It was the object of Jesus Christ to sanctify his ěkkλŋoíav, Eph. v. 26, but that object has been partially defeated by the perverseness of human nature: πολλοὶ γάρ εἰσι κλητοὶ, ὀλίγοι δὲ ἐκλεκτοί· i. e. The Churchmen are many, but the chosen of God are few. Mat. xxii. 14. But in order to arrive at a right interpretation of this Parable, we must first settle what is meant by (uun. This is easily done. Ζύμη is used in one other place by Matthew, viz. xvi. 6, 11, and 12, where it is explained by Jesus, v. 11, and by the Holy Spirit, v. 12, to mean the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. The next passage is Mark viii. 15 to 21, which is parallel to the last cited passage of Matthew. The next is Luke xii. 1. poσéxete čavτoîs ἀπὸ τῆς ζύμης τῶν Φαρισαίων. ἥτις ἐστιν ὑπόκρισις. These are the words of Jesus Christ himself, and when we compare them with the words of Matthew, c. xvi, their meaning appears to be that the Sun of the Pharisees is their teaching, and that their teaching was hypocrisy. The next passage is Luke xiii. 21, which is parallel to the passage in hand. The next is 1 Cor. v. 6, 7, 8, which we shall consider presently. The next is Gal. v. 9, which is parallel to 1 Cor. v. 6. These are all the passages where (úμn is mentioned in N. T., and in every one of them (uun is used in the same sense, and in a bad one. But this is not all. The Suun of N. T. carries with it a direct allusion to the aguμa, or feast of unleavened bread, instituted while the Israelites were yet in Egypt. During seven days they were to eat unleavened bread and in order that they might certainly do so, they were strictly charged to put away all leaven out of their houses, Levit. xii. 15, and 19: no leavened bread, and no leaven, was to be seen with them in all their quarters, Levit. xiii. 7. But what was the meaning of this usage? for leaven is a good thing of itself, and is absolutely necessary to the making of pleasant and wholesome bread. If the leaven, or yeast, as it is commonly called, be wanting, or if it fail to work properly, the bread refuses to rise, as we say, and presents a heavy, hard, indigestible

lump. But in fact the whole was symbolical. Unleavened bread is good for nothing, of itself: but it was used by the Holy Spirit to typify the purity and simplicity which is required of those who would hold communion with JEHOVAH. 1 Cor. v. 8. And the symbol is easy of illustration: for flour is merely ground corn, a natural production, which comes to us pure from the hand of God: leaven is an artificial production of man, obtained by a chymical process: when leaven is added to flour, the two unite chymically, and the nature of the whole compound is changed. A like result would follow from adulterating the pure Word of God with the teaching of man. Accordingly we find that (úun is explained by the Holy Spirit to be the symbol of wickedness and corrupt teaching: and that the a¿vμa are emblematic of purity and truth. Thus Paul, alluding to the Levitical precept, says, 1 Cor. v. 7, 8: ékкalápaтe Tηy madaιav ζύμην—ὥστε ἑορτάζωμεν, μὴ ἐν ζύμῃ παλαιᾷ, μηδὲ ἐν ζύμῃ κακίας καὶ πονηρίας, ἀλλ ̓ ἐν ἀζύμοις εἰλικρινείας καὶ ἀληθείας.

ἣν λαβοῦσα γυνὴ ἐνέκρυψεν εἰς ἀλεύρου σάτα τρία] We must now enquire into the meaning of the other ingredient, aλeupov. This word is most important; for it distinctly refers to the Sower, who has now retired off the scene, but has not left himself without a witness, Acts xiv. 17. In the first Parable of the Sower, no particular_name is given to the seed which he sows: but in the second Parable, the κaλòv σnéρμa of v. 24 is called σîtos in v. 25, and again in vs. 29, 30. Now aλevpov is made from viros flour from wheat as is aptly illustrated by Heraclides Ponticus, c. ii : πέττει δ ̓ ἐν αὐτοῖς σῖτον οὐδείς· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἄλευρα κομίζουσι, σιτοῦνται δὲ ἄλφιτα. Here then is a key to the meaning of this fourth Parable: the flour represents the produce of the pure Word of God, which would now be adulterated with corrupt and abominable doctrines of man. This exactly represents what took place in the Holy Catholic Church. But what is meant by oára rpía; why is three mentioned? This is a difficult question: but the words seem to contain a mysterious allusion to the three parts, or divisions, of the Roman Empire, of which To TρiTov is repeatedly mentioned in Apoc. viii, and ix: and perhaps also to the rpía μépn of the Great City, Apoc. xvi. 19: but that is a prophecy which can only be explained by the event: a crisis that has not yet arrived, but which perhaps is not far off. Who then is the Woman that added leaven to the flour? This is an important, but not a difficult question: it seems to be the same Woman who sits upon the Seven Hills, Apoc. xvii. 9. We have also in this Parable another mark by which the Woman may be known.

There is some resemblance between the words of this Parable, ζύμῃ ἢν λαβοῦσα γυνή, and the words of the preceding, κόκκῳ σινάπεως ὃν λαβὼν ἄνθρωπος· nor is this the only resemblance between the two Parables: for both represent an operation of

evil influences, and a state of things contrary to the intention of the Sower. But there is one remarkable difference between the two: namely, that in the third Parable, as in the first two, the principal character is The Sower: but in the fourth Parable, he has retired off the scene, and another actor is introduced. This seems to mark a long interval of time.

- ἕως οὗ ἐζυμώθη ὅλον] In these words we have a solemn warning of the fatal success which would attend the working of the leaven of corrupt teaching. The whole of the flour was leavened. That is, the whole Christian world was so adulterated with falsehood, as to become one mere mass of corruption: a prophecy, which history has fulfilled to the letter. But the Greek words carry with them a mark by which the Woman may be known: ἐζυμώθη ὅλον· We have seen that ζύμη is in Scripture the symbol of every thing that is bad, κakías κai Tovηpías, 1 Cor. v. 8, and especially of corrupt doctrines, Luke xii. 1. Then whose were the doctrines that corrupted the Christian world? The word oλor tells us. Those of the Catholic Church. It was the Holy Catholic Church that adulterated the flour; that is, mixed up monstrous falsehoods with the pure Word of God. A like allusion appears in Apoc. xiii. 3, ἐθαύμασεν ὅλη ἡ γῆ ἐνώπιον τοῦ Onpiov. But the words of Paul, 1 Cor. v. 6, allude distinctly to this Parable, and form a valuable commentary upon it: he says, οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι μικρὰ ζύμη ὅλον τὸ φύραμα ζυμοῖ; Now this is spoken figuratively: then how could the Corinthians know that a little leaven would leaven the whole compound? Why, because Jesus had said so, whose words are repeated by Paul; (vμn, and oλov, and (vuoi. The verb (vμouv occurs in only four places, or rather in two pairs of places, in N. T; namely, here, and in the parallel passage of Luke xiii. 20: and again in 1 Cor. v. 6, and Gal. v. 9, which last is an echo of the other. It is impossible to mistake the meaning of this verbal allusion. The proposition of Paul is, that a little leaven would be sufficient to leaven an unlimited quantity of flour: which, figuratively spoken, was strictly true : as would be known to those who remembered the words of Jesus Christ. But the whole chapter, 1 Cor. v, appears to be a commentary upon this Parable, and each throws light upon the other. For the subject of that chapter is the Toрveía of the Corinthians: a subject on which Paul must have been unwilling to write: for his letters were not intended to be a chronicle of impurity; and in another place he says, Toрνeía каì яâσа ȧκαθαρσία μηδὲ ὀνομαζέσθω ἐν ὑμῖν—τὰ γὰρ κρυφῆ γινόμενα ὑπ ̓ αὐτῶν aloxpóv éσri kai λéyew. Ephes. v. 3, and 12. Yet nothing can be aloxpórepov than the impurities which Paul notices in 1 Cor. v. 1. Then as Paul always wrote under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, it is plain that a particular direction to write as he did in 1 Cor. v. superseded the general direction expressed in Eph. v. 12. And why was this? In order that Paul, in his censure of the

Topveía of the Corinthians, might illustrate the meaning of the Suun of the Levitical law. Thus v. 6, Paul says: où Kaλòv Tò καύχημα ὑμῶν· οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι μικρὰ ζύμη ὅλον τὸ φύραμα ζυμοῖ; Now the Kaúxnua of the Corinthians refers to v. 2, where they are said to have been πεφυσιωμένοι on account of the πορνεία that was among them; whereas, says Paul, they ought at once to have excommunicated the offender, v. 2; and for the reason which he gives, v. 6, that μικρὰ ζύμη ὅλον τὸ φύραμα ζυμοῖ. Here then is another key to the meaning of the (úμŋ in the present Parable: the (uun is compared to Topveía, which is a Scriptural symbol of a false and idolatrous worship: e. g. Apoc. ii. 20, and 21; xvii. 2, and xviii. 3. So that the yun of this Parable appears to be the πóрνη of Aрос. xvii. Thus the meaning of the whole Parable appears to be that the Catholic Church would mix up false and impure teaching with the pure word of God, until the whole Christian world was leavened with her impurities: a prophecy which has since been fully accomplished.

It may be observed that the last three Parables trace the gradual progress of corruption in the Christian world: first, weeds are sown in among the corn; and the weeds and the corn grow up side by side, but do not mingle. Secondly, Satan establishes himself in the branches of the Christian Tree. Thirdly, the woman Jezebel, Apoc. ii. 20, appears upon the stage, and leavens the flour: the two unite chymically, and utter corruption ensues. Apoc. xi. 7. This was the climax of evil, and the triumph of the Holy Catholic Church.

35. ἀνοίξω ἐν παραβολαῖς τὸ στόμα μου] These words are cited from the 78th Psalm, which recites some of the principal events in the early history of the Israelites; all which events were Parables, i. e. were symbolical of other events which would afterwards happen in the history of the Christian world. Thus, the rock in the wilderness was a symbol of Jesus Christ, 1 Cor. x. 4: the water issuing from the rock, a symbol of the outpouring of God's Holy Spirit: the plagues of Egypt, a symbol of future judgments on the Holy Catholic Church: &c.

· ἐρεύξομαι κεκρυμμένα ἀπὸ καταβολῆς] This is the reading of Tischendorf: which resembles the construction of the Septuagint version, although it alters the words, which were péyέoμaι προβλήματα ἀπ ̓ ἀρχῆς. The common reading adds κόσμου after καταβολῆς.

39. OvvTÉλela Toû alwvos] Not end of the world as E.V. but end of the age, i. e. of the time which God has appointed for the collateral growth of the wheat and weeds: which time, perhaps, has now nearly run out. There is no foundation in Scripture for the hypothesis that a judgment of annihilation will ever visit the Planet in which we dwell. It is worthy of observation, that Jesus in his interpretation of this Parable, passes over in silence two remarkable expressions which he had before used: the first

The

of them occurs in v. 25, ἐν τῷ καθεύδειν τοὺς ἀνθρώπους an expression, of which time has since unfolded the meaning to us. See note on v. 25. The second, is the conduct of the servants, v. 28. They came to the landlord, and asked him if they should pull up the weeds: and he said, "No: leave that to me." meaning of which seems to be, that according to the will of God, man would not take upon himself to pronounce and execute judgment upon heretics: a principle which is now fully understood and acted upon in free and happy England. But others would act contrary to the will of God, and would put to death all those who differed in opinion from the Holy Catholic Church; until, in the language of Scripture, the old harlot was drunk with the blood of the witnesses of Jesus. Apoc. xvii. 1, 6. This is emphatically alluded to by the silence of the Interpreter.

44. θησαυρῷ κεκρυμμένῳ ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ] In order to interpret this Parable, we must first discover the meaning of Onσavpa, and of dypa for all turns upon those words. To begin then with dypa what field is this? And here it must be observed that Jesus had already used the symbol of a field in the Parable of the Weeds: which symbol he has himself interpreted to mean the World at large. Therefore it might seem at first sight that the same symbol ought, by parity of reason, to have the same interpretation here. But the whole tenor of this Parable shews that such an interpretation here would be wholly inadmissible: for a treasure cannot be said to be hidden in the World; nor can any man or class of men be supposed to go and buy the World. Moreover it would follow from the same reasoning, that the ἄνθρωπος of this Parable must be the same with the ἄνθρωπος of the second and third Parables, that is Jesus Christ himself: so that this Parable would represent Jesus to go and buy the World; which would be absurd. But without abandoning the principle that one Parable affords a key to the meaning of another, it is easy to assign a limit to the application of that principle here. For in each of the first three Parables the principal character is a Sower: therefore it is fair to suppose that the Sower, the seed which he sows, and the field in which he sows it, respectively symbolize the same things in each of those Parables. But now the Sower has retired from the scene: other actors are introduced, and other things are symbolized.

What then is the meaning of dypós; history enables us to answer this question. We have seen in the fourth Parable that the whole Christian world was leavened with the false teaching of the Holy Catholic Church: the cause of truth seemed hopeless. But God had provided a remedy. This was the Revival of Learning. In the thirteenth century, mankind, who had been asleep, v. 25, began to awake out of their intellectual torpor: the languages of antient Greece and Rome began to be studied anew: Universities were founded for the encouragement of literature: